Rhetoric skews organisational explanation

Gerry Toner
Jul 26, 2020
10 min read

Human ‘Business’ Organisations: We need Science not rhetoric in our explanations of human organisations

If science provides a ‘scientific explanation’ for anything, that should mean the subject / proposition / theory has the capacity to be understood and accepted by another intelligent species. Or alternatively it should have the least human contamination in terms of selected data input and presentation of ‘facts’. If science is not accessible by other intelligence, then it is ideology. Within the human world it can have the label ‘science’ meaning best factual argument or closest to the 'truth' that humans can achieve. However, it is also likely to be rhetoric.

‘Scientific’ must mean the most expansive and complete explanation possible making the method of assessment/ inquiry and data collection the most robust possible. All hypotheses are subject to positive proof or rejection. This still does not achieve a non-rhetorical character, as what is achieved can be merely justification in human terms of human perspectives. If a human encompasses what is known about other being forms and is attempting to accommodate that existence, then it could be claimed there is an attempt at a non-rhetorical science.

This question of completeness is part of the scientific method. Diversity of knowledge has also added to robustness and completeness increasing the protection from critique from specific angle / perspectives. Thus, economics is often critiqued from many ‘other’ perspectives [natural sciences /sociological/ psychological/ political/ historical/technical…] leaving it open to ridicule for many but also constrained in its claim to be a science.

Our goal as successful humans must be to achieve a non-rhetorical explanation of things. Organisation is the site of human endeavour and currently explaining organisation is trapped in rhetoric. That is an age old tension between science and politics.

Things change!

Newton’s laws of mechanics and their basis for physics have over time been displaced and for some rendered very partial. This does not render Newton lower in value to humans, but it does establish Newton as merely human and not an ‘immortal’. Thus, his theories were flawed in some aspect, even if his efforts could not be questioned.

Philosophically science itself as a method and as subject matter has become tarnished with the mark of pre-disposition and in some views transformed into ideology.

Newton’s science was the best achievable and it is not proposed that Newton was consciously selective and distorting ‘the facts’. Newtown like the rest of us was selecting and we accept that his basis for doing so was ‘scientific’. However, this is also a flaw and is a limit of knowledge.

Ontologically however it is also a human bias and Newton like most scientists, implicitly makes the claim to knowledge as a human without recognising his bias against other beings / forms of existence. Newton was also religious, which must contribute,as with his other life experiences [plague] to his way of being and seeing. Being religious does not of itself make him a poor scientist, although it may. Being a 'man of science' may make him less religious in some views.

Either science is ontologically without challenge or it is not grounded correctly. Epistemologically, a chosen method can arrive at a poor observation / conclusion via errors in method, bias in outlook of the observer but with a good ontological intention. However, a human cannot achieve a good ontological intention unless they achieve knowledge beyond the human that allows for all beings/ forms of existence. Otherwise the human is engaging in rhetoric, an argument with the intention of persuading other humans to an outcome / observation / conclusion that is suitable to humans and non-aligned to other beings / forms of existence.

An explanation therefore for anything must attempt to be beyond criticism, and this really means, be at the extent of human knowledge, i.e. beyond any capacity to know better. If there is a perspective beyond humanity, then the human cannot access it experientially, only theoretically.

It should also be observed that an explanation should accommodate the non-human world. Thus, economics has assumed ideas about what is referred to as resources or even ‘natural capital’. It has also at present developed certain assumptions around rights over and to possess these resources, including the concept of property and capital. It is a well-established argument in economics, that the discipline, and therefore the humans who practice it, does not account for energy adequately and as such has a completely imbalanced model and understanding of production [Keen 2020]. Thus nature is not accommodated by humans in these functions and their use.

If these concepts, as others, are to be beyond reproach then potentially 'non-human explanations' would also use these concepts. Thus, an ant would share the same view of such a science, irrespective of whether it expresses that view. ‘Resources’, as material, within nature are also available to other beings. ‘Resources’ are also forms of existence in that they contain like humans the same constituents of life as humans. We are specific forms created by complex and ‘beyond human’ energies within the macrocosm.

According to accessible science humans are made of the same mineral content as most of the universe. ‘Resources’ as such is an ideological term and a rhetorical one, used to justify an ideological perspective of human life called ‘economics’. In other words, a scientific explanation is nothing but an ideology if it is only pertinent to the human perspective. An explanation for the history of the earth must explain it not as purely human experience but as something within which human experience is explained.

It should be the same for the concept of organisation. Like Newton’s laws and theories our knowledge tells us about our knowing as well as offering insight to the subject matter. Like Newton’s theories our perspectives on ‘organisation’ are more like ideology than science.

Organisation theory:

Historical

All humans have been created within and by organisation. Humans have over time devised and implemented new ‘organisations’ and these as with all arrangements are ‘devices’ to enable humans as groups / communities to solve problems / achieve goals. With human organisation humans achieve what no single human can achieve. Thus, in economics production and reproduction is enhanced via human organisation.

An evolutionary point here is what is a human. As we are an evolved species our pre-human ancestors play a role in our trajectory. Unless we claim that all future forms emanating within ‘human evolution’ is human, thus breaking the continuum of evolutionary theory, then we will evolve into non-humans. Indeed, it is argued by some, [Ray Kurzweil, Margaret Attwood, Paulo Bacigalupi, Zoltan Istvan] that this seems to be our destiny.

Without entering this aspect of science / philosophy I will argue pre-human and human societies are predicated on organisation as a core component of that evolution. I propose that no human individual exists without an organisation. We can as creatures exist outside empirical organisation. However that individual was created by organisation. Apart from the question of how such as non-human came into existence without another human but still claim to be human, that creature / entity would not be able to interact with humans. How would that creature be human? The concept of organisation is a pre-disposition to social relations as the basis of human society. Organisation is not a tool or concept it is human practice. Our study of organisation should accommodate that fact and our historical explanation for the history of organisations should reflect this dynamic.

Conventional theory:

As said above if our explanation is not inclusive, I mark that approach as an ideological one. One with a Partial View of the evolving forms of organisation.

A Partial View is a rhetorical one; that presents aspects of the subject without integrating other variables in and around the subject. The Partial View is also an intention to depict only a subset of variables that suit the agency or community of interest it benefits. As an evolutionary quest it is arguable, we are all subjects of long held Partial Views as a condition of the limit of knowledge and consciousness as beings. It is argued therefore that the Partial View itself evolves as human consciousness of existence and being evolves. I would argue the contestation over the limits and affects of any Partial View lead to its agitation and its development along a path towards an ‘improved’ state.

Where that Partial View is the pre-dominant view, I refer to that as the Dominant Partial View [DPV]. In modern complex human social relations, there are multiple Partial Views. At any one point a Dominant Partial View holds sway. As with Kuhn’s thesis on scientific paradigms the DPV shifts as social relations shift and contestation produces new arrangements.

The DPV is a dominant model with the most accepted rhetorical thesis or power over the creation of models of human organisation. By definition the DPV is not a sustainable model as it is based on rhetoric and a narrower view than all human interests might require. Therefore the DPV is a contested view and there is a permanent dynamic of design and re-design to improve effectiveness and legitimacy.

Darwinian evolutionary theory and modern spin-offs argue that the human animal as a corporeal body is not the evolving subject. It is the genes that are being evolved and are taking a direction. The human form is the form of agency / mode of existence for these genes in a given era. Others who observe different eras also argue that the Darwinian theory is a specific explanation of evolution that does not accommodate certain eras when cross species evolution was possible. Thus, Freeman Dyson argues for a new biology, in a recent Edge, obituary

“Citing the work of Carl Woese, an expert in the field of microbial taxonomy, and Nigel Goldenfeld, a physicist, Freeman called for "a new biology for a new century": [Edge review of Freeman Dyson on occasion of his death]

What this episode must tell humans is there is a contest over the subject of history and that the human is not ‘the subject’ of history, unless history is itself an ideological narrative. This would make history more like children’s books and basically allegorical theses. Thus, human organisation is limited as a form of, and human organisation theory is propaganda for, specific models of human organisation. This is not problematic unless such theory is presented as science when in fact it is ideology.

It also tells us that organisations are part of the evolutionary path and that this is a contested path in which within species competition occurs [Darwin/ Dawkins] and cross species competition occurs [Woese, Goldenfield, Dyson]

Conventional theory of organisation is positivist in core, adopting Cartesian reasoning of the superior human as thinker of concepts therefore omnipotent. Idealists following Kant seeking reasoned argument for betterment and Weber seeking balanced 'objective' concepts to design functioning but complex arrangements called organisation are outlining the rhetorical model of human organisation. The model that assumes no other existence and all knowing humans. This core tradition is the pathway for most organisations, although there has been energy deployed to improve the effectiveness and the legitimacy of this model.

Critical perspectives:

Other contemporary human theories offer insight to the idea of competition around organisation and therefore posit the human organisation as a politically contested social formation in time space. More recent theorists [Braverman 1974 is the most noted ;see also Stephen Marglin What do bosses do? 1974] offer political insight and justify requirements for broader approaches to human organisation, with a competing view, to alter the empirical ‘facts’ of life for organisation. Thus, Braverman desires a more ‘socialist’ form of organisation to achieve a broader distribution of monetary rewards for all citizens with a defined social formation, normally a nation.

This ‘political’ perspective picks out limits and weaknesses. The political approach is equally a conventional approach and does not seek to overcome the DPV but to replace a specific DPV with another.

The conventional approach is ‘a maintaining the social order theory’ attempting to maintain the core of the conventional perspective of law and property including wage relations. Mainstream policy around organisations attempts to mitigate the dislocation and imperfections generated as long as these core artefacts are retained.

On a more challenging basis Tronti and others in the ‘autonomy’ school [Cleaver] developed alternative theories to offer insight to modern capitalism and its historical movement. Thus, they enabled a 'more scientific' approach and engaged the concept of the human as a form of existence and agency.

The persistence of social contest is not explained or addressed thus rendering explanation partial and incomplete. The DPV cannot recognise or explain the ongoing contest as to do so would engender the fundamental critique that human organisation is contingent and not a fixed state. It would also highlight the relative instability of the DPV as it is a recent narrative, is contested by larger numbers of humans and continues to generate instability within its own political 'orbit'.

The alternative / critiques [socialist or other] equally offer human DPV alternatives, leading possibly to new human arrangements but with significant contest.

Clearly there is a goal of unifying the view of the organisation and engendering a Unifying View. It seems any future view of organisation, as in the Kuhnian thesis, must dispel the limits of the current ideology of organisation and introduce new and viable forms.

Today we have the concept of the minimum viable product [MVP] as mainly expressed by and developed within Silicon Valley and the software world. Thus, according to Wikipedia MVP means “a product with just enough features to satisfy early customers and provide feedback for future product development.”

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_product].

The challenge for new models / theories therefore is to achieve a minimum of viability and that its status is accorded by a social construction of reality process involving other humans in various organisational patterns.

An MVP in organisational terms may lead to another DPV in political and social spaces. It may also engender a new round of ‘progress’ within capitalism [most likely] or another mode of production [unspecified- less likely]. It is likely that whichever of those options, the new era / mode, will be leading towards another evolutionary trajectory and another contest for further evolutionary change.

If we can adopt a more scientific perspective, we can as humans recognise our limits and flaws, but know we can learn from them and gain from them. This perspective will also reduce some aspects of the contest and shift towards a more sustainable and ideally Unifying view that more / most / all humans can access. It is not a given that there is always a better model to come. In theory that must be possible, but as evidenced in the time of Covid-19 and other global events, humans retain the capacity to design increasingly rhetorical theories of organisation and to use power [DPV] to implement them.